Unfortunately Shag I caught your message after midnight NY, when the Kisselgoff review had turned into the Internet equivalent of a pumpkin. The daily stuff on the NY Times is there for only the day, but the Sunday stuff stays there for a week.<P>The NY Times is a relatively easy site to link to. In Netscape (differences for Microsoft Explorer in brackets), when you are in the page with the review/article:<P>- left-click once on the Location (Address) box near the top of the page <P>- In the top menu bar, left-click Edit, left-click Copy<P>- Go to the page in criticaldance where you want to place the URL and move the cursor to the required spot<P>- left-click Edit, left-click Paste.<P>That's it.

Shag, it's hardly surprising to me that there's a gushing review of NYCB in NY Times. Its critic Anna Kisselgoff has been very pro -Peter Martins right from the beginning of Martins' regime. It would however be something if any of the New York weekly magazines' critics gave as enthusiastic a review of NYCB!<p>[This message has been edited by Kevin Ng (edited 03-02-2000).]

Anne Kisselgoff is not a lone voice, Kevin. In the NY Post Clive Barnes is usually supportive, as is Manhattnik, the ex-pro. reviewer who illuminates Ballet Alert.<P>In addition, Robert Gottlieb in the Autumn 99 Dance Now, talks about NYCB having turned the corner and come through a transition phase to gather new strength. <P>There is probably a greater divergence of views on NYCB than most other companies. <BR>What do you Yanks think?

Yes, Stuart, the other NY daily critic Clive Barnes is generally enthusiastic about the current state of New York City Ballet. Though I don't share his (as well as Kisselgoff's) enthusiasm myself, I do respect their opinions. For me, whatever the opinions are, I just hope that NYCB won't turn out to be another version of the Royal Danish Ballet in 50 years' (or even less) time, which cannot dance well its own heritage. Balanchine in this case of course, instead of Bournonville.

With the discussion on NYCB, extended now to Royal Danish Ballet, we are entering into the war zone of the current ballet world concerning standards of performance and the preservation of heritage. This is worthy of a long debate if others are interested. <P>But just to start the ball rolling, perhaps it is interesting to make comparisons with other art forms. A recent new audio recording of all of Shakespeare's play showed a marked change in performance style from a similar top quality series from the 1960s. If one of the plays was put on the stage in the style of the last Century, the laughter would be deafening. I have heard performances of piano works on the forte piano, the predecessor of today's pianoforte. It's interesting to hear once or twice as the original sound, but the modern instrument has a much more attractive sound for me. Both styles of performance are valid.<P>Similarly, I wonder whether the ballet traditionalists are merely noting that performances of today are different and that this automatically means that they are worse. It's interesting that experienced critics such as Clement Crisp, Jane Simpson and your good self, Kevin, really enjoyed and were impressed by the Bournonville Festival by the Royal Danish Ballet, whereas others howl of rape and pillage. Similar disagreements seem to apply to the NYCB performances. <P>Another point that comes up frequently is a perception of under-rehearsed work. This has certainly happened at the RB over the past two months, but I'm a bit puzzled as whenever I look at old programmes from the 40s and 50s, the listings of future events have acres and acres of different works. I would be very interested to hear the views of others who can make comparisons between workloads and rehearsal times past and present. <P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited 03-04-2000).]

While not professional, I'll weigh in on this totality of this thread, rather than just Stuart adept observations.<P>This is, in my opinion, THE discussion in ballet. NYCB and its observing of the "Balanchine" style/tradition, like the Royal Danish, are absolutely vital to ballet. They have something unique and give ballet lovers a historical perspective about different interpretation and direction great chor. have taken. What I take great issue with is the franchising of Balanchine outside of NYCB simply to either propel a newer company to hieghts critically, despite the two dimensional aspects that this "devition" fosters. I also think that the artist development and true creativity is the true victim here, as well as the audience who will eventually stop coming back to see jewels for the 12th time, no matter how well danced.<P>I worried about the new companies such as Carolina Ballet simply using the Balanchine "fast track" but have been pleasantly surprised by the diversity. I truly hope that the company's that have done little else over the past few years will broaden their reps rather than the same old/same old.<P>NYCB is a great blend of a true "museum" company while still broadening their rep along the way. I think the Royal Danish also fits that descr, from the recent reports.

Shag, I agree with you that NYCB's careful observing of its Balanchine tradition is essential to the future of ballet.<P>Stuart, good point. I forgot about Clement Crisp's enthusiastic review of the Royal Danish's Bournonville Week. After all, he should know, as he must have been watching the company for over 40 years. As for my own review for "Hong Kong Standard" and Ballet.co, I praised the company, but I did qualify my opinion by stating that I am not a long-time follower of their Bournonville performances. And I only compared it with NYCB because I remember the recent review of New York Magazine's Tobi Tobias who is an expert on the Bournonville tradition.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=2074" TARGET=_blank>http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=2074</A>

Interesting discussion.<P>As far as critics go, I understand that Kisselgoff tends to be nice to everyone. But then again, I haven't read her enough to be qualified to agree or disagree with this assertion. And, Stuart, Manhattnik has been known to castigate Peter Martins, especially at "Swan Lake." In fact, as I recall the story, Manhattnik had to be hushed because he was openly criticizing this Martins production within earshot of the man himself.

Wow. Me and Clive in the same sentence. I never thought I'd live to see the day! Thanks, Stuart.<P>Azlan, just to set the record straight about the Martins thing, I was leaving the State Theater with some friends after one of City Ballet's Swans. We were heading out the side staircase that exits out to Amsterdam Avenue right past one of the stage-door exits. I was expostulating at some great length and, no doubt, volume, about the shabby and bilious first-act design, when, unbeknownst to me, Martins emerged from the stage door behind us. Nobody had to shush me, although I'm sure I gave my friends a chuckle or two walking out into the street blasting the production with Martins walking behind me.<P>When I saw him heading past us, I realized he must've heard every word, and was a bit mortified, but only a bit. I certainly wouldn't have made such comments to his face, or knowingly within his earshot (unless I could think of something really, really funny to say). On the other hand, I'd bought a ticket, it was my dime, and it wasn't like I was booing at the curtain calls. <P>Martins must've known there'd be strong negative reactions to his Swan, or if he didn't, he should have.<P>I'm sorry I posted anything about the incident at all, but it seemed amusing at the time.

Actually, Manhattnik, I thought it was a great honour for Clive Barnes to be in the same sentence as you! Welcome to crticaldance and thanks for the nice story. I remember Mark Morris saying that he preferred to read a well-reasoned bad review of his work rather than sloppy praise. Maybe Martins felt the same way.....maybe.

Did anyone see about that Balanchine retrospective that's going to be at the Kennedy Center this summer? Several companies were invited, I believe by the Kennedy Center, to perform various Balanchine classics, --Pacific Northwest Ballet, some russian company and others. Very oddly enough, NYCB was not included; some long, convoluted excuse about the NYCB orchestra, because of some arcane union contract, not being able to perform at the kennedy center.I believe this article was either in the April Dance Magazine or NY times...can't remeber. Does anyone have further info. about this? I know that Peter Martins fired Suzanne Farrell way back when, and I also know that Suzanne Farrell is affiliated with the Kennedy Center, but I don't know if this has anything to do with it??!!?!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum